the all decade team.

[|)e8*]

PG-AI
SG-Kobe
SF-LeBron
PF-Duncan
C-Shaq

Bench:
PG-Steve Nash
SG-D-Wade
SF-Melo
PF-KG
C-Yao

[shadowgrin]

Tracy McGrady has done a better job carrying a team on his back (resulting in actual back troubles).

[Mayerhendrix]

I think Lebron James deserves the nod over Kevin Garnett solely for the fact that he actually has taken the Cavaliers from being one of the shittiest teams in basketball to one of the finest in a span of several years -- Kevin Garnett never really managed to pull together the Timberwolves and he was working with an equal amount of talent up there.

the question of who starts matters less to me than who should be on the team at all. I put garnett in the starting line-up just because he's been an MVP-caliber player for the entire decade. He did lead his t-wolves to the conference finals, and he's been nba mvp before. add to that the championship with boston and a defensive player of the year award, and he gets a slight edge over Lebron.

"Yao Ming or Dwight Howard"
- Jermaine O'Neal

"Paul Pierce or Chris Webber or Tracy McGrady"
- T-Mac

Wade, Billups, Pierce, and Webber can probably round out the remaining bench and IR. I'm also stumped on who's the 12th man.
Webber in the IR, definitely.

Jermaine O'Neal is like Elton Brand to me. Great stats, great skills, but hasn't achieved greatness with a team yet.

Starting Five :
C - Shaquille O'Neal
PF - Tim Duncan
SF - Kevin Garnett
SG - Kobe Bryant
PG - Jason Kidd
( Sh!t I Picked The Same Starting Five ! )

Bench :

bSG - Vince Carter
bSF - Tracy McGrady
bPG - Allen Iverson
bPF - Dirk Nowitzki
bC - Jermaine O' Neal ( The Pacers Version , obviously )
LeBron James - Combo PG to PF
Chris Webber - Combo SF to C

As a long-time raptors fan, I can tell you how overrated Vince Carter is. And to think we used to think of Vince as the next MJ. Then we realized Kobe's the closest we'll get to another MJ, Lebron james is superhuman, and even Tracy McGrady has done a better job carrying a team on his back (resulting in actual back troubles).

Vince Carter is consistent alright...he'll put up 18 points a night, as long as he has to take 10 or 25 shots to do it.

And on the other hand -- everything you described KG as describes Lebron James, except that he came 2nd in DPOTY voting instead of 1st. Trivial matter. But those years of playoff series' versus the Pistons and the Celtics qualify Lebron James as clearly better than Kevin Garnett. He's easily shined more on his own and produced more NBA Classic moments than Garnett will ever.

[Alejandrov011]

Starting 5

PG: Steve Nash: a bit ahead of Jason Kidd, close choice
SG: Kobe Bryant: a lock
SF: LeBron James: a lock
PF: Tim Duncan: a lock
C: Shaquille O'neal: a lock

Bench

PG: Jason Kidd: a lock
SG: Allen Iverson: In his prime at Philly he was the shooting guard while Snow had the point guard duties
SF: Manu Ginobili: a lock, vital for the Spurs, the most consistent team of the decade
PF: Kevin Garnett: a lock
C: Dwight Howard: He has done much more than Yao in less time, for example, playoffs race

Bench fillers

PG: Chauncey Billups: He deserves the position
PF: Dirk Nowitzki: Not so sure, but he deserves

IR

Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Dwayne Wade

Honorable Mention: Ben Wallace

[raptorsdynasty33]

Starting 5

PG: Steve Nash: a bit ahead of Jason Kidd, close choice
SG: Kobe Bryant: a lock
SF: LeBron James: a lock
PF: Tim Duncan: a lock
C: Shaquille O'neal: a lock

Bench

PG: Jason Kidd: a lock
SG: Allen Iverson: In his prime at Philly he was the shooting guard while Snow had the point guard duties
SF: Manu Ginobili: a lock, vital for the Spurs, the most consistent team of the decade
PF: Kevin Garnett: a lock
C: Dwight Howard: He has done much more than Yao in less time, for example, playoffs race

Bench fillers

PG: Chauncey Billups: He deserves the position
PF: Dirk Nowitzki: Not so sure, but he deserves

IR

Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Dwayne Wade

Honorable Mention: Ben Wallace

I like that list. The only disagreement I have is with Manu Ginobili being considered a lock. Yes perhaps the Spurs were the most consistent team of the decade, but I'm crediting that to Tim Duncan. And if there's to be another Spurs player on the all-decade team, I'd be split between Manu and Finals MVP Tony Parker. In any case, if you're going to go by how vital a player is for a consistently good team, than i'd sooner select "MVP Nowitzki" from the Mavs than "off-the-bench Manu" from the Spurs.

My answer to that is CONSISTENCY . . .
Vince Carter is one of the most consistent players in the game . . .
Always putting up 18+ points every game at any night . . .

I'm still scarred by Vince Carter's troubles with Jumper's Knee and his lazy "why-dunk-when-I-can-shoot?" attitude in his later years with the Raptors. Now, I won't disagree he's one of the most consistent 18+ ppg players in the game today, but as long as there's 12 players ahead of him he doesn't make the all-decade team. Even Devin Harris is outscoring him now. Plus, Tracy McGrady has a better record in the ppg department than Carter.

I'm just thinking, if there's only 12 spots and we're going by position, I don't see how Vince Carter bumps out Paul Pierce, Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson, or Tracy McGrady; four players that have accomplished more than Carter.

[raptorsdynasty33]

Starting Five :
C - Shaquille O'Neal
PF - Tim Duncan
SF - Kevin Garnett
SG - Kobe Bryant
PG - Jason Kidd
( Sh!t I Picked The Same Starting Five ! )

Bench :

bSG - Vince Carter
bSF - Tracy McGrady
bPG - Allen Iverson
bPF - Dirk Nowitzki
bC - Jermaine O' Neal ( The Pacers Version , obviously )
LeBron James - Combo PG to PF
Chris Webber - Combo SF to C

Holy crap! Forget the Webber as an SF/PF/C comment, how about the fact that you left out a two-time MVP in Steve Nash?

[Alejandrov011]

Hi raptors.

I think that he was the true MVP (or maybe a close call) of the second ring of tghe Spurs. So the race between him and Parker is close too. But i take Ginobili ahead of Parker anyway

[shadowgrin]

Starting Five :
C - Shaquille O'Neal
PF - Tim Duncan
SF - Kevin Garnett
SG - Kobe Bryant
PG - Jason Kidd
( Sh!t I Picked The Same Starting Five ! )

Bench :

bSG - Vince Carter
bSF - Tracy McGrady
bPG - Allen Iverson
bPF - Dirk Nowitzki
bC - Jermaine O' Neal ( The Pacers Version , obviously )
LeBron James - Combo PG to PF
Chris Webber - Combo SF to C

Holy crap! Forget the Webber as an SF/PF/C comment, how about the fact that you left out a two-time MVP in Steve Nash?

Let it go raptors. I doubt he can even explain his own post.

[Hedonist]

Holy crap! Forget the Webber as an SF/PF/C comment, how about the fact that you left out a two-time MVP in Steve Nash?

Why not disagree with the MVP commission if you wish..

If this is just about stats and rings and awards then why bother to discuss it at all?!

I would definitely leave out Tim Duncan and put in LBJ & KG because I think they are just better.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

Debates about greatness of players, comparing one to the other and things like that, I've read many of them and always people are pointing out the number of rings and MVP's and things like that but I think that is less relevant as it seems.

For instance championships; does anyone seriously think that Derek Fisher is a better PG than Jason Kidd or Steve Nash as a complete player? (I don't wanna take anything away from Fisher, terrific role player)

That goes just the same for considered star players. They are also depending to some extent on the rest of their team.
Just imagine if the Portland Trail Blazers wouldn't have passed up drafting Michael Jordan..
Would that have made Clyde Drexler a better player? He would have had a few more rings to show for it I guess!!!

So, that being said, my Decade 'Dream' Team would be:

Jason Kidd, PG (better defender than Nash imo)
Kobe Bryant, SG
Lebron James, SF
Kevin Garnett, PF
Shaq, C

reserves

Bruce Bowen (chosen for complementary reasons)
Tracy McGrady
Yao Ming
Dirk Nowitzki
Dwayne Wade
Chris Webber
Steve Nash

I'd like to choose Jason Williams but that's just a bridge too far.
He would have to go in my most fun decade team to watch I guess. A lot of guards in that team.

[benji]

Why not disagree with the MVP commission if you wish..

Or as they're more commonly known: sports writers.

[shadowgrin]

I think they prefer the term NBA Expert or NBA Analyst.

[Hedonist]

Why not disagree with the MVP commission if you wish..

Or as they're more commonly known: sports writers.

Still an elite selection otherwise described as committee ofcourse but I'm not a native English speaker and in my own languague the word is very similar to the misused 'commission' thank you very much.

[raptorsdynasty33]

Let it go raptors. I doubt he can even explain his own post.

Haha okay, you're right.

Why not disagree with the MVP commission if you wish..

If this is just about stats and rings and awards then why bother to discuss it at all?!

In my original post in this topic I laid out my criteria. Even in the first post of this topic a criteria was laid out. In my version of an all-decade team, i'm considering stats, rings, and awards in addition to talent in order to narrow the field to 12 players. It's also to make sure that we're evaluating the players based on their accomplishments to the decade, rather than just a simple current-ranking of top players. In other words, I'm making an all-decade team, not an all-star weekend team.

I would definitely leave out Tim Duncan and put in LBJ & KG because I think they are just better.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

No, like I said, it's an all-decade team, not an all-star team. But I can see now that we're talking about different things.

Debates about greatness of players, comparing one to the other and things like that, I've read many of them and always people are pointing out the number of rings and MVP's and things like that but I think that is less relevant as it seems.

For instance championships; does anyone seriously think that Derek Fisher is a better PG than Jason Kidd or Steve Nash as a complete player? (I don't wanna take anything away from Fisher, terrific role player)

The mistake you're making is presuming that when one speaks of awards and rings, they are using them as the sole criteria. We're trying to narrow the field as much as possible. The first criteria is talent. We know that Jason Kidd and Steve Nash are more talented than Derek Fisher. Now we have two 'equally' talent players in Kidd and Nash. So we look to apply other standards, like rings, awards, and stats. Had anyone in this topic gone by rings alone than Robert Horry would be everyone's starting power forward.

That goes just the same for considered star players. They are also depending to some extent on the rest of their team.
Just imagine if the Portland Trail Blazers wouldn't have passed up drafting Michael Jordan..
Would that have made Clyde Drexler a better player? He would have had a few more rings to show for it I guess!!!

I don't know what this means.

So, that being said, my Decade 'Dream' Team would be:

Jason Kidd, PG (better defender than Nash imo)
Kobe Bryant, SG
Lebron James, SF
Kevin Garnett, PF
Shaq, C

reserves

Bruce Bowen (chosen for complementary reasons)
Tracy McGrady
Yao Ming
Dirk Nowitzki
Dwayne Wade
Chris Webber
Steve Nash

I'd like to choose Jason Williams but that's just a bridge too far.
He would have to go in my most fun decade team to watch I guess. A lot of guards in that team.

Bruce Bowen? I'm going to take shadowgrin's advice on this one and just let it go.

I think by now in this thread most people can agree on eight or nine players that are locked in. I can't wait to see what the all-decade team looks like when EA Sports adds one in their NBA Live series, or when the NBA History site releases theirs.

[Hedonist]

Why not disagree with the MVP commission if you wish..

If this is just about stats and rings and awards then why bother to discuss it at all?!

In my original post in this topic I laid out my criteria. Even in the first post of this topic a criteria was laid out. In my version of an all-decade team, i'm considering stats, rings, and awards in addition to talent in order to narrow the field to 12 players. It's also to make sure that we're evaluating the players based on their accomplishments to the decade, rather than just a simple current-ranking of top players. In other words, I'm making an all-decade team, not an all-star weekend team.

I would definitely leave out Tim Duncan and put in LBJ & KG because I think they are just better.
Isn't that what it's supposed to be about?

No, like I said, it's an all-decade team, not an all-star team. But I can see now that we're talking about different things.

I did overlook your criteria, didn't read post 1 again after the rest of the thread and we may be talking about different things because of it but no way is my selection an all-star weekend sort of team.

I wonder if this topic is in the right section as we are talking about a video game team and not the actual NBA, what I thought it was about.

The mistake you're making is presuming that when one speaks of awards and rings, they are using them as the sole criteria. We're trying to narrow the field as much as possible. The first criteria is talent. We know that Jason Kidd and Steve Nash are more talented than Derek Fisher. Now we have two 'equally' talent players in Kidd and Nash. So we look to apply other standards, like rings, awards, and stats. Had anyone in this topic gone by rings alone than Robert Horry would be everyone's starting power forward.

The mistake that you are making is presuming that I am stupid, I was merely making a point.

Bruce Bowen? I'm going to take shadowgrin's advice on this one and just let it go.

I think by now in this thread most people can agree on eight or nine players that are locked in. I can't wait to see what the all-decade team looks like when EA Sports adds one in their NBA Live series, or when the NBA History site releases theirs.

Yeah I needed a defender quickly.

If this is up to EA Sports I agree Tim Duncan will definitely be in and Bruce Bowen will not.
Also I guess they would hesitate to put too many active players on the team because retired players add more to the game.

[Martti.]

I would say:

Starting 5
C - Shaq
PF - Garnett. (I don't consider KG a SF, otherwise Duncan would be here with KG at SF)
SF - Lebron.
SG - Kobe.
PG - AI

Bench: (Random order)
Big Ben, Duncan, Kidd, Nash, T-Mac, C-Webb, Paul Pierce.

Honorable mention: D-Wade, Chaunsey, Yao, Dirk.

[shadowgrin]

Why is Garnett ahead of Duncan?

[raptorsdynasty33]

I wonder if you didn't put this topic in the wrong section as we are talking about a video game team and not the actual NBA, what I thought it was about.

This is in the "General Forums - NBA Talk" section, not the NBA Live section. Easy thing to overlook.

The mistake that you are making is presuming that I am stupid, I was merely making a point.

Your point was that rings and MVPs are less relevant than people would think. I understand that. My problem was with your statement about Derek Fisher. No one has argued that having championships makes Derek Fisher a better PG than Steve Nash or Jason Kidd.

If this is up to EA Sports I agree Tim Duncan will definitely be in and Bruce Bowen will not.
Also I guess they would hesitate to put too many active players on the team because retired players add more to the game.

That brings up the question of when EA Sports will include an all-decade team for the 2000s in an NBA Live. I believe the first time they had a 90s all-decade team was in NBA Live 2000, which included Legends for the first time and did feature active players. But I think that had more to do with getting the license to put Michael Jordan in a game for the first time. I wonder if someone could check to see if EA Sports revised the 90s decade team in each incarnation of NBA Live since 2000.

Why is Garnett ahead of Duncan?

At least we can agree that they're both on it. The last guy actually dropped Duncan from the whole team.

[Hedonist]

I wonder if you didn't put this topic in the wrong section as we are talking about a video game team and not the actual NBA, what I thought it was about.

This is in the "General Forums - NBA Talk" section, not the NBA Live section. Easy thing to overlook.

The mistake that you are making is presuming that I am stupid, I was merely making a point.

Your point was that rings and MVPs are less relevant than people would think. I understand that. My problem was with your statement about Derek Fisher. No one has argued that having championships makes Derek Fisher a better PG than Steve Nash or Jason Kidd.

Fair enough.. wrong example.
Clyde Drexler was a good one though isn't he?

John Stockton is perhaps the best point guard ever next to Magic Johnson (who was really much more than a point guard).. never won a ring or MVP award. He is acknowledged as HOF'er (or will be come septembera longside MJ) but there are a lot of great players overlooked imo. Lack of exposure, glamour and prizes has got a lot to do with it...

Why is Garnett ahead of Duncan?

[/quote]
I think Garnett is better because he is a charismatic leader, more versatile and more mobile, quicker.
(which is a good thing next to Shaq, again, I thought it was about picking what I thought the best possible team of the '00s)

The last guy actually dropped Duncan from the whole team.

That's right, figured I didn't need him at all.

Regarding stats and accomplishments, he is a no-brainer. He has a great career. Super. Almost completely throughout the decade as well. But I wouldn't put him in my personal top twelve best players. I think he can live with it.

[raptorsdynasty33]

I think Garnett is better because he is a charismatic leader, more versatile and more mobile, quicker.
(which is a good thing next to Shaq, again, I thought it was about picking what I thought the best possible team of the '00s)

ohh okay. I think most people are thinking of the all-decade team as a sort of All-NBA team for the decade. It's more of an honorary thing. So team chemistry and playing style doesn't come into consideration. If it was a real team, I wouldn't want bad-boy Iverson anywhere near it. And I get the feeling Argentina would somehow still beat them.

[Hedonist]

ohh okay. I think most people are thinking of the all-decade team as a sort of All-NBA team for the decade. It's more of an honorary thing. So team chemistry and playing style doesn't come into consideration. If it was a real team, I wouldn't want bad-boy Iverson anywhere near it. And I get the feeling Argentina would somehow still beat them.

Yeah, I know they won't actually play together lol @ that last comment but still I consider AI less of a player than his numbers suggest because I don't care about 60 pts in a game or whatever if you're not a good team player. He's a great player no doubt but not as great as he could have been and that's a shame.

Some players didn't win rings because of being drafted by the wrong team at the wrong time or having the bad luck to repeatedly find a dominating team on their way in certain eras but AI may have blown a few chances himself.

Duncan is a fine team player btw but Garnett gives his team something extra.
I supported the Bulls in their series but I did enjoy KG's reactions on the bench very much. Even if he's injured he's an asset.

[Mayerhendrix]

What pisses me off most about Iverson has to be that a good number of people actually point to his assists totals as evidence that he can be a distributor and get it done in a team-oriented system -- but they fail to take into account that his career turnovers average is pathetically horrible (worse than any other nba player currently in the league of comparable reputation, probably).

[Andrew]

If it's turnovers per game we're looking at, his career average of 3.6 is still comparable with Jason Kidd's career average of 3.1. To put that in a historical perspective, Magic Johnson's career turnovers per game average is 3.9, more than Kidd or Iverson. Of course, Magic's career assists per game averages is 11.2 and Kidd's is 9.2, compared to Iverson's 6.2 so AI's assist-to-turnover ratio is not on par with those two elite point guards, past and present.